User talk:Nethgirb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Proposed Merge Routing

In my mind your merge is a real bad idea.

However this article needs to be fixed not merged. It needs to be fixed, not merged. I am currently working on something else but I will get back to this. I would request that you reconsider your merge request. --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 14:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page. --Nethgirb 18:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem on the changes in the intro of Routing protocol article.

There is a problem with your trim of the intro of the article. It was written this way so the maint tag could be removed. With the infomation removed the into, needs the maint tag place back on it. Basically wiki feels that the intro lacks information for a casual reader to understand what the article is about. Your trim removed the info. I understand what you did but I think you need to write the intro so that someone that does not know anything will get a basic concept. Not sure what you would prefer. The maint. tag back and then the whole thing needs to be re-written or the info reverted. --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 02:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ps, wiki links cannot be used in section headers in articles as I do in this one for example.

OK (though I wasn't the one that put them there). --Nethgirb 03:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nethgirb, I need to go but I want to leave you this note: I wrote the intro in this fashion because I removed the maint tag that complained the intro was two short and did not explain things in simple terms. Your trim would have required the maint tag be put back on because it was too short and did not explain enough to the avg user. I opted to revert it so I did not have to put the tag back on. Anything after that intro feel free to edit.

If you want to edit the intro, it has to talk about more than routing protocols this is what the maint tag was complaining about in the first place. Besides the editor that placed it there wanted basic background. --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 03:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply to this on the article talk page. --Nethgirb 03:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Routing Table Article

Please let me know your thoughts on merging Routing table with Router. I do not really see the need for this article as seperated. We could just maked a redirect to point to the article section in Router for those looking for the info directly. Thanks! --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 15:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know about that article. Merging seems like a very good plan. --Nethgirb 21:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately we may have a problem. Howard has written a number of articles as stand alone stubs. From what he is doing I am concerned that an Admin will take action on this. I would like to avoid this. The articles cannot be written in the way that is teaching reference material. I have tagged the article and I have pointed it to an admin for help. As long as at least other admin says ok. There will be no problem in my mind. --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Invited to Join the Computer Networking Project

If you did not join already. I invite you to join the Networking Project that I am already a member of. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_networking just edit the page and add your user name to join. Once you are a member you can ask others to join and hopefully we can work as a team and clean up and expand the networking articles. --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look --Nethgirb 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Majorization

I hope you're not going around routinely changing inline non-TeX mathematical notation to TeX indiscrinately. The article titled majorization has far to much inline TeX and should get cleaned up, changing most of it to non-TeX and setting most inline TeX in \scriptstyle. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy 23:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Which of my edits are you referring to? As for majorization, yes, it's got a lot of TeX in it. Feel free to try beautifying it. --Nethgirb 02:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This one. Michael Hardy 02:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That edit actually reduced the number of inline images by one :-). I suppose which notation is more appealing is always going to be rather subjective, but thanks for pointing it out—I will keep this in mind for future edits. I suppose the best solution would be if WP had nicer-looking inline TeX. --Nethgirb 05:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)